The Hobbit: An Extraneous Journey

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

"lovingly turned single lines into detailed scenes"

A practice known as "fan-fiction." Or, alternatively, "pulling stuff out of his arse."

------------

It's one thing to say a director can and ought to put his personal stamp on an adaptation, and quite another to say that a particular effort by a particular director must therefore be good. Most would I think agree that the "personal stamp" of the hack who directed the Mike Meyers 'Cat in the Hat' was abysmally bad. In this case it's the "personal stamp" of a ham-handed and adolescent-minded director with no sense of self-restraint who has never understood the atmosphere or themes of the originals (neither LOTR nor Hobbit).

The result, therefore, is not an expanded or fully-realised Tolkien universe, but rather something akin to, some catastrophe having demolished half the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican hiring Frank Frazetta to paint the new part. Or, perhaps, Mozart's unfinished Requiem 'completed' by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

God, why must you hate on everything that isn't a 100% accurate rendition of the book? Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?

I for one felt it was a good, exciting and well-paced film with plenty of humour and a nice whimsical atmosphere about it. But those trivial facts clearly mean nothing compared to the grievous, all-important issue of how 'burrahobbit' was pronounced.

I have my complaints as well - Azog certainly felt a bit too computer-generated to me, for instance - but clearly any attempt to defend what has already been decided as wretchedly abysmal for the crime of not matching your mental pictures is doomed to failure.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

" Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?"

Strawman, strawman, strawman. You Revisionists always trot that out as if it's an argument Purists make, even though it isn't and never has been. I don't care how many buttons Bilbo has on his waistcoat or which Dwarf's hood was what color.

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.

And, no, it's not a "good film." Even detaching it from the books entirely and looking at it simply as popcorn cinema, TH is too long, poorly paced, and over-reliant on too many pointless fight scenes that drag on for far too long.

[Annatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

" Can't you acknowledge it as a good film without ranting about how Erebor looked too nice or how soul-murderingly awful it was that characters that appeared in the books weren't exactly how you pictured them when the film came around?"

Strawman, strawman, strawman. You Revisionists always trot that out as if it's an argument Purists make, even though it isn't and never has been. I don't care how many buttons Bilbo has on his waistcoat or which Dwarf's hood was what color.

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.

So when things that Tolkien had created got removed from the Lord of the Rings adaptation it was bad but when things (that Tolkien himself created) got introduced to the Hobbit adaptation it was just as bad?

Adherence to overall themes?

It did feel very fairy-tale and Hobbity to me, with the Elvenking's stag mount, the songs, Radagast, the Great Goblin and the humorously bickering Trolls. Maybe I was watching a different film from the copy your cinema - there must have been an error ensuring I got a fun, charming and nice film rather tha your grim, dour, drab, un-Hobbity copy.

And, no, it's not a "good film." Even detaching it from the books entirely and looking at it simply as popcorn cinema, TH is too long, poorly paced, and over-reliant on too many pointless fight scenes that drag on for far too long.

Too long? Poorly paced? It felt like just over an hour when I was watching it in the cinema! The excellent humour re4ally helped.

Also, all the fight scenes I recall -

Smaug burning Erebor. Backstory, not really a fight scene.

The battle at Moria. Backstory filled out during a quiet moment.

Trolls. Dwarves, try to rescue Bilbo, get captured - majority of scene is not physical combat. In book. Shows us Bilbo's growing courage and guile (in a departure, he's the one who comes up with the idea of stalling for time),

Chase by goblins. Not from book, introduces Radagast/Dol Guldur subplot (to be fulfilled in later films) and shows us to Rivendell.

Stone Giants. Emphasis is on hiding and surviving overwhelming threat - no real action takes place. In book.

Goblin Town escape. Fast-paced with plenty of humour, whimsy and excitement. Derived from book.

Wargs and goblins. Generally as in book, Thorin fights Azog character but the general flow (Dwaves climb trees-Gandalf throws burning pinecones-Dwarves about to be smoked out-Eagles arrive) is as in the book.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"things (that Tolkien himself created)"

You must have a different edition of The Hobbit than I do-- mine doesn't include an albino Orc with a peculiar life's goal of hunting down and destroying the House of Durin. My abridged copy also left out the bunny sled, Bilbo fighting a goblin, Thranduil doing homage to the King Under the Mountain but wimping out when needed, Thorin & Co attacked by Orcs/Wargs on the way to Rivendell but rescued by Elrond's mounted archers....

Plainly I need to get the full version.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

What we *do* expect is adherence to the overall themes, tone and atmosphere of the books; characters which aren't turned into inversions of themselves; and- as important as anything - no additions of subpar rubbish Jackson or Boyens make up out of whole cloth, apparently on the assumption that they can write better than Tolkien. They're mistaken.

That's a rather unfair characterisation. It's tricky using interviews, because most of the time there are word limits to articles so large portions of the interview are removed, or the context is removed to create a "spicy/controversial" quote that will sell more papers. The director commentaries are obviously going to provide their own slant which paint Jackson into a positive light. However, I'll say the furthest I've seen Boyens go is saying she thinks Tolkien would like/be proud of the movies they made. I'd still disagree with her opinion, but that's not at all the same as boasting she writes better, or felt they improved Tolkien's story. Jackson at one time said it was silly tomatos weren't in Middle-earth, so he put them into his movies. Granted they are trying to changes things around to tell their story, but I've read nothing in their interviews to suggest they felt they improved Tolkien.

I should note now, when it comes to subjective loving/liking/hating the movies, I don't give my opinion to demand everyone must see and feel about them the way I do. But I do think both sides of the argument overlook a various points. One side thinks anything Jackson creates is the greatest piece of movie making ever, and he always makes the sage movie-decision. The other side thinks Jackson's a hack who doesn't know anything and can't do anything because his life goal was to turn the Lord of the Rings into his own creation.

For the movies (and now I'm talking about the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit) there are two different aspects I take into consideration. The visualisation in the films is very very well done. WETA put stunning detail and visuals into all the pieces they created for the film, and this drives was spear-headed by Jackson who is a very detail-oriented director. He also put together a team that was known and accepted by the Tolkien-community before Jackson's ideas about making the films were formed. I'm talking about John Howe, Alan Lee, David Salo amongst others. People Jackson selected because of their previously establish visualisation, and people Jackson obviously paid a lot of attention to their input in the process of making the movies. I didn't care for Lothlorien in FOTR, and I thought Rohan was not as rich and green as I expected, but the aesthetic part of the movies was fabulous.

Jackson (and Boyens and Walsh) fell well short when it comes to script-writing, however, and could have benefitted from someone who knows how to write a script. On the best of days, their work is mediocre, as many of their characters get beat into an archetype (Aragorn the 'reluctant hero,' Denethor the crazy ruler, Gimli the comic relief...etc) or are just very shallow. In the defense of movies in general, it's difficult to give depth to your minor characters, because the screen time isn't there to flesh out a full and detailed background (as Tolkien had when writing his story). So Denethor really does become simply insane, and in an attempt to show a bit of depth when he sees Faramir burning, it's really unconvincing.

However, even the main characters Jackson creates are nothing to boast about, and you really do have to get the main characters right in movies. Elijah Wood's Frodo is weak and unconvincing, Aragorn is the reluctant hero archetype, it's all very predictable and shallow. The only characters in the film with some depth to them are Boromir, who well dies in FOTR, and Gollum and it is more to Serkis being able to portray convincing emotions, which was ironic being a CGI character (eventhough there were liberties taken with the "split personality," I don't think it's a bad/wrong route to take with Gollum's character).

I thought the first Hobbit film did a much better job with the main characters, Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf. However, as I've already said, I thought the tension between Bilbo and Thorin was more of the staple of Jackson and Boyens' script-writing...forced, predictable, and cheesy.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"but I've read nothing in their interviews to suggest they felt they improved Tolkien."

Actually I have, although I'd have to watch hours of video to find the particular examples.

But that's really off-point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact of the alterations themselves is all the evidence one needs to make the case that PBJ thought they could "improve" the story. And please don't drag out the blank-cheque "adaptation" excuse- nothing in translation from one medium to another necessitated Elves at Helm's Deep, or Aragorn-off-the-cliff, or now the Nazgul Tombs balderdash and the silly Azog sub-plot.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

But that's really off-point: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the fact of the alterations themselves is all the evidence one needs to make the case that PBJ thought they could "improve" the story. And please don't drag out the blank-cheque "adaptation" excuse- nothing in translation from one medium to another necessitated Elves at Helm's Deep, or Aragorn-off-the-cliff, or now the Nazgul Tombs balderdash and the silly Azog sub-plot.

Two things here...

1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story.

2. Even if alterations alone were proof of this, and the goal in Jackson's mind was thinking he improved the story...this is still different from boasting their alterations did in fact improve the story.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story."

Sorry, but my microscope can't quite focus in on the hair you're splitting there.

[Nogrod]

I think one specific requirement of the Big (Money) Film Industry remains to be remembered... Unlike we who know the stories like our own pockets - or more or less so - and despite the fact that there are millions of Tolkien fans out there, most of the viewers of these films don't know the stories before, or that is at least the way the studios see things (and they're probably correct in their polls as there is a lot of money involved).

So many of these things in the films we friends of Tolkien's writing have a great dislike on - like Aragorn falling the cliff, or Denethor's one-dimensionality, or "freshing up" the dwarves - are due to the fact that they have to sell the films to people who don't know the story already.

The interesting question in this regard (aka. concerning Jackson & Boyens as personalities - if and when that clearly interests someone - and the role of the marketing departments of the studios) should actually be not that much "do they think they made the story better than the prof", but whether they were doing all that stuff the way they did because the studios forced them to do a few cliffhangers () or to cut down some intricacies to make it more simple and interesting to a non-Tolkien fan so that s/he could follow the multiple characters and plotlines, and to have the moments of suspense as to how things will end up?

One who is not familiar with the books doesn't know whether Aragorn is going to play a role in the future... so him dropping off the cliff is a suspense-thing for a viewer who doesn't know the plot - and emotianally quite charging as well! (I hated it as much as anyone!!!)

I mean really, we fans or afficionados are a minority after all and it is a bit too much to ask that a multimillion-dollar bussiness would serve only our interests - as nice as it would be. Our money wouldn't pay for the film-budgets...

That said, I do agree with Boro - among many others - in adoring the visual imagery of the films (and Howard Shore's musical interpretation of it), the "PJ universe" if you wish, and just plain subjectively hating most of the various changes they've made to the initial storyline and to the spirit of Tolkien.

The spirit of Tolkien gets especially beaten in the Hobbit, but even here a disclaimer is to the point. No, "The Hobbit" isn't without problems even as a literary work as it walks the thin line between a funny children's story and a more "serious" prequel to what happened afterwards... I know it was written first and the whole saga and the universe came afterwards - but despite that, I see it still as a story struggling to balance itself between a children's story and and an adult-tale. Like the movie which has those kind of dark and gory battle-scenes that are clearly meant to look "realistic" and thus bad - and the slapstick-combos fex. in the Goblin King's Hall with all the "funny stuff" involved in the fight and flight...

[Ruscundil]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

1. Making alterations is not proof of Jackson et all thinking they were improving the story. Either one accepts that with the film rights sold and Jackson chosen as the director has his own artistic license rights when it comes to making the films. Therefor, alterations are a part of Jackson trying to put his director stamp on the story. Alterations, in and of themselves, are not proof Jackson thought he improved the story.

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

Ruscundil– please see my previous remarks about insulting people. Anyone can make a typo, you know.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Leaving aside your illiteracy, you're wrong. Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

One might argue that alterations made were based on the change of medium, which is a fair statement. It does not, however, change the fact that the story itself suffered as a result of alteration. End of story, I'm afraid... literally.

Get back to me when you decide you want to exchange ideas by having a discussion on the topic and not trying to win debate points with ad hominem arguments. I don't debate.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Ruscundil

Jackson must consider his alterations an improvement to the story. Alternatively he must concede that his alterations either made no difference to, or negatively impacted on, this classic. It's really that simple.

Actually it is not that simple. The studios and the financers of the movies lay a lot of restrictions and assert demands when making a multimillion dollar bussiness (which the Hobbit movies are from their POV): they expect to make profit and thence require certain things (like sexy dwarves for teenage-girls, enough funny battle-scenes for boys etc.). There's little PJ or any director can do about those.

Which is by no means meant as an apology to PJ and some of the choices he and his team has made (I dislike them as much as anyone here seems to dislike them), but it is not a simple thing why certain "changes" are being made.